Ever had all your cherished
preconceptions blown slam out of the water? Although the inboard version
carried an extra 25 gallons of gasoline, which added 155 pounds to her
load (6.2 pounds per gallon of gasoline x 25=155 pounds), she ran a full
10.5 mph slower, way slower than the extra fuel could possibly account
for. Moreover, although the inboard boat uniformly consumed less gasoline
from the standpoint of fuel burn alone, it was significantly less efficient
when speeds were factored in. The most dramatic example of this occurred
at 4000 rpm. While the fuel burn was slightly less than the stern-drive
version’s, it was approximately 20 percent less efficient all-told.

Open-water performance
was a bit surprising, too. Besides the stern-drive 342’s ability
to cut sharper, more responsive turns in open water (an anticipated development
wholly attributable to the side-to-side articulation of her I/Os), I noted
a bigger-than-expected plus: The stern drive evinced considerably less
bow rise coming out of the hole, and it also manifested a much shallower,
more efficient running attitude on plane. All this was due to the substantial
lift double-prop Bravo Three drives are famed for, I’d say. Tucking
them in against the transom while throttling out of the hole produced
extra lift at the transom, thus levering the bow down. On plane, extra
lift accomplished much the same thing.

But docking was the
real mindblower. Several times I eased the stern-drive version of the
342 into her slip like she was a little ol’ pickup truck—the
steerable Bravo Threes displayed incredible traction and tracking. Trying
to dock the inboard version, on the other hand, was challenging on two
counts: 1) Although our test boat’s 320-hp, gasoline-fired MerCruiser
Horizons are excellent engines, they simply didn’t have enough bottom-end
maneuvering torque to be authoritative; 2) Our single-lever Mercury engine
control functioned poorly, with détentes so faint I found it hard
to know where I was—reverse, forward, or neutral.

Late-afternoon showers
started to loom just about the time we finished up on the bay. As Waggoner
and I eased on back to the marina, him driving one 342 and me the other,
I felt just a tad conflicted. The performance-type advantages of the stern-drive
version were undeniable and significant, especially considering the fact
that Rinker is selling it for $1,700 less. But the real-world virtues
of the inboard were undeniable too, at least for those of us who keep
our boats in salt water. Stern-drives are prone to corrosion in such an
environment and they generally require more maintenance, repairs, and
haul-outs.

A compromise snuck up
on me, at last. If I were shopping modern, midrange, midcabin cruisers
for use on the Great Lakes, I’d go with the stern drive—no question.
If I were shopping modern, midrange, midcabin cruisers for use on the
coastal Atlantic (and I had a little extra cash for incidentals), I’d
go with the stern drive again, believe it or not